As mentioned in my first note, it does seem as you say longer FL tele
primes have nice bokeh routinely. Not sure how that works. Must say
some zooms may not, even with FL a bit over 100mm. Witness the Canyon
24-105 L f4 kit lens. I saw some comments by Andrew regarding occ
oddball unpleasant bokeh from the very sharp Tamron SP 80-200/2.8. I
have read that IF zooms may be subject to harsher bokeh though have not
seen that studied per se.
Astigmatism can clearly negatively affect bokeh esp further out from
the center. Withness the MTF graph of the Tammy zoom I have below.
The sag/tangential plots are esp divergent on the short end
(astigmatism). I can testify that the bokeh is very nice on the long
end. It also does not need to be stopped down as much on the long end
to sharpen it up. Makes sense to me---put it on a pod and stop it way
down on the short end for landscapes but enable hand holding good
portraits on the long end with adequate resolution and bokeh at wider
apertures.
I don't remember how bad the bokeh is on the short end, but I will find
out this weekend --a possible TOPE shot could be toast if I can't fix
it.
Oh, the simple Tessar designs seem to consistently have nice bokeh as
mentioned.
http://www.photodo.com/product_531_p4.html
Mike
Dawid states:
Returning to the original question in this thread, I must say that the
90/2.0
is still the smooth bokeh king of all the olympus lenses I've used.
The 300/4.5,
which I use and love, is great, but I am not so sure that one can
compare a long
tele like that with shorter lenses, all teles seem to have great
bokeh. My Tokina 800mm
tele has, in that regard, the best bokeh I've ever seen, but I really
think this becomes
a matter of focal length - I have personally not seen a tele prime
with ugly bokeh.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|